National Assembly for Wales

Okay. Can I welcome Members and the public to this morning's meeting of the committee? We will be undertaking evidence sessions today, but before we do that, can I just do some housekeeping? Can I remind Members, please, to turn your mobile phones off or to silent, so that we're not interrupted during our sessions? The meeting is being broadcast live on Senedd.tv and a transcript of the proceedings will be published in the usual way. We operate a bilingual system in the Senedd, and therefore, if you require simultaneous translation from Welsh to English, the headsets are available and that's on channel 1. If you require amplification, that will be on channel 2. Also, there is no scheduled fire alarm this morning, so if one does take place, please follow the directions of the ushers to a safe location.

We move on to the first evidence session. Can I welcome our witnesses, Professor Laura McAllister, who was chair of the expert panel on Assembly electoral reform, and Professor Alan Renwick, who was a member of the expert panel on Senedd reform? Welcome. I'm going to move into questions quickly, because we have a shortage of time, and perhaps I'll start with the first one. In your views, based upon the work you did in the expert panel—and I appreciate that we had a special purpose committee after that and we've had other committees since—is there anything that you would have expected in the Bill that isn't in the Bill?

Shall I go first?

Yes, go on, Laura.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Cadeirydd. Thank you very much. I think Alan and I are very cognisant that we worked on the expert panel report some six to seven years ago now, and I think politics and constitutional matters have moved on since then. I don't think there's anything in the Bill that is unexpected. I think some aspects of the Bill are very much tidying up areas, for example, around the Deputy Presiding Officer and additional Deputy Presiding Officer and the term lengths. I think, generally, the issues and the debate around size are closely related to the ones that we had whilst we were working on the expert panel. Clearly, the impact of Brexit is more clearly felt now, in terms of the competences that have come to the Senedd since then, and I think there's also a more live debate around the deepening of powers for the institution than there was when we worked on our report, not least the independent commission that I'm chairing with Dr Rowan Williams, which, of course, is looking at all of these matters.

So, I don't think there's anything that isn't there that we thought should be there, although I think Alan and I will both want to challenge some of the content of the Bill from the perspective of our analysis of how you enlarge the Senedd.

I would just say that, clearly, the two areas where the expert panel made recommendations where either there isn't material in the Bill or there is only limited material are in relation to gender quotas and job sharing. But I understand, of course, that, on gender quotas, there's separate legislation coming, and on job sharing, there is at least a step in that direction in the Bill.

Okay, thank you. We will go into some of those details, obviously, in the questioning. I was more concerned with trying to find out if there's anything that you think the Bill missed an opportunity on, effectively, and rather than meeting all the expectations, was there something that could have been done. Perhaps that'll be teased out in some of the questions as we move on. Sarah.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, both, for being here this morning. I'm just going to ask a few questions, then, on the size of the Senedd, because your expert panel recommended that it should be 80 to 90 Members, but it's now being proposed that it should be 96. You also said that you were not persuaded that the benefits of having more than 90 Members would necessarily outweigh the resultant increase in costs. So, could you explain to us a little bit how you came to that conclusion and what your thoughts are now that 96 is being proposed, please?

Yes. We undertook quite considerable research of an international comparator basis around size and we tried to look, as far as you ever can, in a scientific way at what would be the appropriate size for the Senedd in the future. As you mentioned, Sarah, we were recommending a bracket of between 80 and 90 and suggesting that the upper end of that bracket would be more appropriate, given the form-follows-function approach that we'd taken with our research. There's lots of evidence out there, of course, that compares institutions according to the competence that they have, the size of the population, any territorial issues, and so on. And I think that was the right bracket for then.

Of course, 96 is slightly above the recommended number that we put forward, and I'll just make two points on that. I think, given what's happened in the meantime, that probably gives an added security to futureproofing the size of the Senedd, because nothing would be more problematic than to increase the size once and then have to go back and increase the size again within a relatively short period. That's relevant, of course, because there's a live debate about the deepening and widening of the powers of the Senedd, not just through our commission, but more widely. So, I think that's important. Were something like justice to be devolved to Wales, then, clearly, there would be the need for a much bigger capacity of scrutiny, particularly, and, potentially, for the ministerial capacity side as well.

I think the other point I'd make, and Alan would probably have additional ones, is that it's a very fine balance between cost and benefits, and also public opinion, because, clearly, you would want to bring the public with you on a journey towards enlarging the Senedd. That's not always easy, of course, as we all know. But we made the point that there was less return in terms of benefits for the cost that it would swallow were we to go above 90, so I think that argument has to be made for 96 based on that delicate balance between cost and benefit.

Of course. Thank you.

I agree with everything Laura has said there. Clearly, it's a matter of balancing costs and benefits. So, the benefits of increased size are particularly around greater opportunities for representation and, particularly, greater opportunities for deeper scrutiny within the Chamber. The costs are principally simply financial costs—it costs more, clearly, to run a bigger Chamber, and, potentially, costs in relation to public opinion if there is a perception that more politicians, to use the language that often would be used, are a bad thing.

I think it's clear that the benefits continue to grow, so there continues to be more benefit as you increase the size of the Chamber. Looking back at our report from six years ago, it's quite striking that we talk about how, even if you're increasing the number of Members to the sort of range that we were talking about, in order to gain benefits in terms of Members being able to specialise to a greater degree, not having to be on multiple committees, it would still be necessary to have quite a lot of constraint upon the number of members of a committee, the number of committees. So, the benefits continue to develop further as you go beyond 90 in terms of being able to have a stronger scrutiny system, but the costs clearly grow as well. Our calculation at the time was that those costs become harder to justify as you go into that range.

But, as Laura says, if you take into account that we are six years further down the line now, there have been lots of changes. As Laura said, Brexit in particular has happened and brings additional changes, and the desirability of futureproofing is considerable. So, I would be quite comfortable with 96 as a number at this stage. 

Okay, thank you. So, just to clarify, the report was six years ago, and when you did it, you based the 80 to 90 on the current powers, not on the potential future powers, which, as you said, could be justice.

Yes, except we did note that the debate was ongoing over further areas of devolution, and also the point that I made about not wanting to have to revisit this question, hence our recommendation was at the upper end of the 80 to 90 figure.

Okay, thank you very much. Just my last question, then—you've touched on this a few times, but it would be good just to get a solid, clear answer. Do you think the costs proposed for the implementation of the Bill appear to be proportionate compared with those published by the expert panel?

I think they do, yes. I looked closely at the detail of the costs, and whilst I didn't sit down with a calculator and work out what inflation was on each of those and rising costs around energy and everything else, I think they're certainly in line with the calculations that we worked on for the additional Members back in 2016. Of course, it's always extremely difficult to work out exactly what ongoing and one-off costs are for this.

I'd make one other relevant point, if I may, which follows on from Alan's. Once you go beyond 90 Members, I think there needs to be a really forensic conversation about how you staff Members as well, because I think we're pushing at the upper end of what is appropriate for the powers that we have currently and what might happen in the near future. I wouldn't like to see the benefits of having politicians being diluted, particularly, by having heavy staff complements, because I think our argument in the expert panel was that staff, whilst they're tremendous and do wonderful work—and I've seen that at first-hand—they can't do the work that a politician does. The rationale for increasing the size of the Senedd has to be about specialisation for Members, and the time and the thinking space that you need to be able to scrutinise effectively. And I've always felt very sympathetic to you as politicians who sit on several committees, because it's almost impossible for you to prepare in a way that allows you to generate the kind of scrutiny that you want to do.

So, my argument, or my point, really, is that we need to be mindful that once we go over the 90 threshold, there probably needs to be a revisiting of what staffing resource is given to the Members as well. That's not suggesting you diminish that, but you don't necessarily increase it in line with the increase in the politicians. 

That's really helpful, thank you. Is there anything to add, Alan?

Can I ask a question on this, then, because 96 was above your previous limit? You've indicated that you were looking at futureproofing; we don't know how far away that might be yet. Have you considered, or did you consider, a combination of increasing the number of Members, plus a change in the way in which the Senedd works?

Yes, we did. We spent quite a lot of time looking at alternatives to enlarging the Senedd, the areas that you know about, obviously—expanding the working week, using the working week differently, streamlining the committees, reducing the membership of the committees, and so on. But there's an obvious trade-off with all of that, which seemed very clear to us, which was that, with a very small number of non-ministerial MSs, your capacity to do things differently is still massively constrained. 

There's also an argument, of course, that if you don't increase the number of politicians, but change the operational format of the institution, you become dependent on non-political capacity here, so staff, not just staff of politicians, but staff of the Commission themselves. And I don't think that necessarily enhances the scrutiny objective, which was the key rationale for why we were recommending an enlargement of the Senedd. 

Thank you. Sorry, Alan, I interrupted you. 

No, I don't have a view, to be honest, on the financial cost calculations; that's beyond my expertise. 

That's—[Inaudible.] Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. 

Darren. 

Can I just pick up on the costs issue, for a moment, if I may? You're right, this does influence how people feel about the proposals and whether they support their implementation or not. So, in your report in 2017, you indicated an upper cost end—which, presumably, was based on an additional 30 Members—of £9.6 million per annum. I don't know how you drilled that down to—. I know that there were some tables with costs in the document. There are two questions I've got about this. One: when I put that through the Bank of England inflation tool on their website, it suggests that the annual cost for 30 extra Members—not 36 as proposed—would be about £12.26 million per year on a recurrent basis. Obviously, these figures appear to be significantly higher than that—disproportionately higher than that—when you take into account that there are only an extra six Members. So, the Welsh Government's calculations are around £17 million in terms of the annual recurrent costs on a yearly basis. Now, appreciating there's been inflation, but I've just taken that into account, is there any reason that you think it's so significantly different? Were there any areas that, when you looked at it, you thought, 'Well, actually, perhaps that could be significantly greater, but we'll allow this'?

Not that I'm aware of, but, as I say, I very much lack expertise on this. The point that I would make—and you're absolutely right, clearly, to scrutinise these figures very carefully—is when we're thinking about the merits of a larger Senedd, it seems to me, in the grand scheme of things, these are fairly small sums of money, and the benefits of a well-functioning legislature are very, very considerable. So, it's absolutely right to be careful about the costs, but I'm just wary of placing too much emphasis on those when we're looking at the Bill as a whole. 

Can I just, if I may, Darren, jump in on that issue? You'll also see in our report that we talked about some counsel to the Independent Remuneration Board of the Senedd—not to assume that everything necessarily had to be done in the same way with more Members. Because it's back to the point I made to Sarah, if you have more Members, then you expect work to be done differently. And I've worked with the remuneration board, so I'm very aware that some of the conversations that we'd had in the past were about compensating for an under-resourced political capacity. So, some of the proposals that were being made were to help MSs, because there were so few of them, but—

So, your figures took into account a reduction in staffing levels, did they, for MSs?

Well, we certainly looked at that. I mean, the figures were ballpark figures, as they had to be at that point. We didn't have the time or the space or, as Alan said, the expertise to drill into the absolute detail of that. But I think that's a live consideration for how you might want to support professionally 96 politicians, and therefore, I'm not sure if that was taken into account with the Welsh Government figures that were put in front of you.

Yes, I mean, just looking at the figures, they're, what, 38 per cent higher than you'd expect them to be, accounting for inflation. Okay—

Before you go on, Darren, Heledd wants to come in on this particular point.

Yes, of course.

I completely agree, and I'm certainly not suggesting for a moment that there should be a reduction in either the staff of the Commission or the staff that work individually for politicians individually. But I think it would be wrong not to look at the support structure around the body of politicians, if the body of politicians increases. Because the evidence that we took in our expert panel, including from the Hansard Society and various other organisations and individuals, made the point quite clearly that the biggest asset to effective scrutiny is the time and the specialisation of politicians. You can compensate for that—and I don't need to tell you that, obviously—by having great staff who are doing the research for you, but at the end of the day, it's you who needs to be in the committee room or challenging budgets and so on. So, I think that needs a debate, and I would be very surprised if the Independent Remuneration Board wouldn't be looking at that in some detail. But I don't think that necessarily means a reduction; it might mean a recalibration or a restructuring of how people work in order to give you the capacity to scrutinise effectively.

Can I follow up on that? Sorry, Darren. Can I just ask, then, because, obviously, one of the things that Westminster has is in terms of access to Short money and so on, to support the nature of opposition work, which is different. So, when you are talking about recalibration, do you think we just need to look at how everything works together in terms of supporting policy development work and so on, some of the things that may be lacking at present?

Yes, I mean, Alan might want to talk about the Short money scenario in the House of Commons, but, for me, I think this is an opportunity as well to look strategically at the support that you have as politicians. I think what's happened over the 24 years of devolution is that things have been bolted on to compensate for an underpowered Senedd, and that's not necessarily the best strategic way of doing it. And I'm not suggesting that the House of Commons has got this perfectly right, by any means, but I think this is an opportunity for the Independent Remuneration Board to look at things in the round, to make sure that you are resourced in a way that allows you to discharge those responsibilities.

Diolch.

Just another aspect of cost, obviously, is making this building fit for purpose and providing sufficient office space for bums on seats, as it were, and the kit that people might need. The Senedd Commission figures seem to be rather lower than you would expect in terms of their estimates: there's £1.8 million-worth of capital expenditure to make all of the adjustments in the Senedd Chamber and office space. What figures did you arrive at when you were considering these matters? Can you remind us?

They're in the report.

We split them, didn't we, in terms of recurring costs and one-off costs, and, obviously, the capital costs were included in those. But I'm not going to pretend to be expert enough to know if the restructuring of this building with its resources is accurately reflected in that number. I can only imagine that the Commission has broken that down into the areas you mentioned, Darren, around—

I wish you had, otherwise I wouldn't be asking you. Okay. We'll make sure that we refer to the report.

Can I turn everybody's attention, then, to the issue of the number of Ministers that's proposed in this Bill? In your evidence, Alan Renwick, you made reference to the fact that one of the principles, if you like, of Senedd expansion should be that the growth of the Executive should be smaller than the growth of the Parliament itself, so that that can aid and improve scrutiny. Do you think that they've gotten the balance right, the Welsh Government, in the Bill that they've put forward?

The proposal, of course, is that the Senedd would increase by 60 per cent and the number of Ministers would increase by a little over a third, if you include the First Minister and the Counsel General in the number of Ministers. So, that basic principle is adhered to. I don't have a view on what the exact number of Ministers ought to be—you need much greater expertise on Wales than I have in order to calculate that exact figure—but certainly, that number is within the right sort of range.

As I've said in my evidence, the point in the Bill that I have more concerns around is the suggestion that it would be possible through regulations for Ministers further to increase that number by two. It just seems to me a really fundamental point that it shouldn't be for Ministers to decide an increase in the number of Ministers; that ought to be a decision that is made by the Senedd as a whole, through full scrutiny, i.e. through primary legislation. So, that is a point in the Bill that I would have a clear concern about.

Ministers obviously could only introduce those regulations if there was a vote in the Senedd—that's what we're told—and of course it would take the number of Ministers from the current 12 up to 17 and then up to 19, potentially, with the vote. One thing that there doesn't appear to be in the legislation is any mechanism to peel that back to 17 if there's a new incoming Government, for example. Do you think that that's something that should be in the Bill?

I think the provision in the Bill should simply not be there. It should simply be for primary legislation to decide that maximum number of—

Okay. But 17 is about right—you'd agree with that, would you, Laura?

Yes. I agree entirely with Alan's point about primary legislation and about a supermajority for changing that, because I think that's right for a constitutional matter of this import. Just in defence of the increase, which I think is proportionate, as Alan said, to the size of the legislature, it's the issue over widening of powers in the future, but it's also the issue of the size of the portfolios that Ministers currently have, which I think are too large and unwieldy in terms of the scope of coverage and being able to discharge those responsibilities well. So I think, on balance, the increase that's being suggested is about right, with the provisos that Alan has made around securing that only through primary legislation, and, in my opinion, supermajorities in the Senedd.

So up to 19 is about right, or up to 17—could you just clarify that for me?

I think up to 17 is right, but I don't object to a future increase, subject to the caveats that we've made here. And that, I think, would only appropriately be brought forward if there was to be a widening of the powers of the Senedd—for example, to include justice, or additional powers over welfare, or broadcasting.

So, there'd have to be a clear business case, as it were, a justification for that increase.

I think that would be the nature of the debate in the Senedd if it was primary legislation coming forward, and I think it's appropriate for it to be scrutinised in that way.

And just in terms of the balance here, there are an additional five Ministers, potentially up to an additional seven Ministers, but on the parliamentary side, the scenarios that are set out suggest just an additional three committees of the Senedd in order to assist with the scrutiny of those roles. Is that enough?

It would depend on the nature of the ministerial roles, clearly. Generally, you want to have a mapping of the ministerial roles and committee roles, and I'm not sure exactly what is being proposed there, but that ought to be the principle that should be upheld. 

But three would be enough, would it? Because the scenarios range from one to three committees. 

It's very difficult, obviously, for us to comment on how a future Senedd should operate, because I think that's a decision for the Senedd itself, with advice from the Commission. But I think it's back to my point about whether the Senedd acquires additional powers. Justice generates a huge area of potential scrutiny, doesn't it, with all aspects of the criminal justice system, including police, probation, prisons, and so on. I don't know how you as a Senedd would wish to map that across the committee structure. But I think our report does give some useful intelligence about how committees should be balanced, that they shouldn't be too big and unwieldy, but neither should they be so small that you can't reach quorum and also that you can't build organisational expertise within the group. But I think it would be wrong of us to be too prescriptive over how the committee structure would look in the future. 

Okay. Thank you, Chair. 

Jane.

Yes, certainly. Thank you. We have, in all democracies at present, a lot of public dissatisfaction with how democracy functions. We have particular dissatisfaction and disillusionment, I'm sorry to say, with politicians, and a concern that politicians—. I'm not expressing a view on this; I'm just saying this is—

We are aware of the public's views. 

There's a public perception that politicians are out of touch—all of the things that you are very familiar with. We have abundant evidence from various sources that removing from voters the opportunity to vote for an individual politician, to choose an individual person on the ballot paper, would further enhance that dissatisfaction. I did a big study a few years ago of voting systems across all European countries, and there has been a very clear trend over recent decades towards giving voters greater choice at the level of individual candidates, precisely in order to respond to that concern. 

In the UK in particular, clearly the UK democratic tradition is one of voting for individuals in elections. We see that in first-past-the-post for Westminster elections, but also under the additional member system—people are able to vote for individual candidates. We've done a lot of recent survey evidence looking at public attitudes to democracy in the UK, and people really value accountability, they really value the principle of being able to 'throw the rascals out', and that includes at the Government level, but also at the individual level. 

It just seems to me very, very clear that to remove that ability for voters to vote for individual candidates would create a significant danger of increasing public disaffection with the system. And when we're talking about a reform to increase the number of politicians, when that is the context, then the suggestion that you also then change the voting system in order to give voters less power to determine who the individual politicians filling those seats are seems to me really dangerous. I just would urge the committee and the Senedd as a whole to think very seriously about whether it really wants to go down that kind of path. 

Yes, certainly. Clearly, under a closed list system the voters directly do not have any influence over which of the party's candidates are elected. Presumably, when parties are deciding who goes at the top of the list, they're going to take into account public opinion in that they're going to want to have more popular people at the top of the list. So it's not as though there isn't an indirect influence there, but there's no direct connection.

There are two kinds of system that the expert panel considered that would give voters a choice at the individual candidate level. The panel recommended in favour of a single transferable vote system, which in a sense maximises the amount of choice that is available to voters and the degree of influence that voters have in determining which of a party's candidates are elected. And you, of course, will be very familiar with STV systems. But the expert panel also indicated that it would be acceptable to have a flexible list system, and a flexible list system is one in which each party presents a list of candidates in a determined order. The party decides what order that is, but voters have some ability to change that order. So, it's more balanced between party control and voter control, whereas STV goes fully over to voter control, and closed lists go fully to party control.

There are a zillion different forms of flexible list system that you can imagine, but in the report we suggested keep things simple and you can just have a system where each voter is able to vote for one candidate from the list of their chosen party, and any candidates who get above a specified percentage of the vote go to the top of the list, essentially. So it's a very simple system to operate. It's easy for voters to understand, easy for administrators to administer. And that would achieve that balance. 

Heledd, you wanted to ask a question. 

Laura might want to come in on this as well, but clearly with a closed list or with a flexible list you can have a zipped list of candidates, so it's not just where you have a gender quota where you require equality in terms of the number of candidates, but you also have alternating female, male, female, male. If you have a closed list, voters cannot change that. If you have a flexible list, it is possible that voters will decide to prioritise people in a way that disturbs that balance. So yes, it is the case that a closed list system guarantees that the equality that you pursue through the gender quota system is reflected in the result. It is also the case that, over time, voters have been getting less prejudiced in their voting behaviour. So, more recent studies find less of an effect—and, indeed, some studies find that women benefit—from individual candidate voting. So, how big a concern that is is something that would require careful thought in Wales, I guess.

Could I jump in on that? I think you can overplay the guarantee part of the closed list with regard to gender balance, because, as Alan mentioned, the open list system can be made to work in a very similar way. And all of the research that my colleagues who work in this area around gender quotas are doing at the moment shows that very point that Alan made at the end, which is that voters actually can favour female candidates, or, indeed, candidates from different ethnic backgrounds as well, through the threshold approach that you can have within flexible open lists. I understand that's being put forward as one of the arguments in favour of closed lists—a safer guarantee—but the evidence suggests that that argument is weakening as electors become less discriminatory towards female candidates or candidates of different ethnic backgrounds. So, I don't think it's as strong as you might think. And one further point about the integration of gender quotas—I appreciate that this will be in a separate Bill, but, nevertheless, we're talking about the electoral system per se—I think it's really important that we don't just interpret quotas as being the vertical zipping of lists, because the biggest impact that you can have is if you horizontally manage the process of quotas according to winnable seats—so, therefore, lists across various constituencies by different parties. If you have those two things together, you can almost certainly guarantee a better gender balance than using just gender quotas—sorry, I'm getting—vertically in a closed list. So, it's really important to see the bigger context to that as well.

Diolch.

Darren, did you want to come in?

Yes. Laura's already answered the question about the fact that the proposed zipping arrangements—

If she's answered the question, we are tight on time.

—won't necessarily deliver a balanced Senedd without other action perhaps being taken. But you can assure us that this issue of ensuring gender zipping can still take place within a flexible list system, which is what you've already—?

We modelled that ourselves in the expert panel, so I think there's evidence there—and other countries have done it as well, so there's plenty of international evidence for that.

Yes. Great.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Jane. Let me be really frank: we rejected the closed list system very early on in our deliberations in the expert panel because it didn't meet most of the criteria against which we were measuring it. Specifically—and I think these were the key issues for us—it gives too much power to the party and not enough power to the elector, as Alan said, so it weakens that area of voter autonomy and voter choice, which is, I think, a dangerous precedent in the current climate that's already been described, and it doesn't allow for any direct line of accountability between a politician and the voter. It allows a direct line of accountability between the party and the voter—and, to be fair to arguments for closed lists, that is in line with the party-dominated culture that we have in the UK generally—but I think, if anything, when people are aware of the fact that they won't be able to actually choose a specific candidate, that that will be chosen for them, I think that could cause some real issues in terms of public support for any change.

The only other thing I'd say in favour of closed lists is that, depending on how you operationalise them—here we're talking about 16 constituencies with a district magnitude of six—that should deliver a degree of greater proportionality. But it might not if the electoral arithmetic changes in the future. Because six is a relatively small district magnitude, it might not generate a great deal more proportionality, which, for me, seems like a heavy price to pay for the weaknesses of closed lists as well. There's also the issue of smaller parties—how will they be represented, given the calculation method for translating votes into seats is D'Hondt, which, traditionally, favours the largest party or the party with the largest number of votes? So, I think—. I mean, I don't know whether you want to go into this, and I'm certainly not an expert about arithmetic calculations—Alan knows far more about that than I do—but it's always worth thinking about how this might be modelled using the Sainte-Laguë system as well, which tends to allow more opportunity, because it's a different method, for smaller parties to be elected. But it's far from perfect. The closed list system was rejected by our panel early on in our considerations against those principles that you mentioned, Jane.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Cadeirydd.

Heledd. It's your turn anyway, Heledd.

So, a shift from a closed list to a flexible list system is very easy to do. A shift from closed lists to STV is a little bit more, but actually not that much more, complicated. And similarly, you can do any of these systems in a system with six-Member districts. It makes a bit of a difference to the counting process, the ballot paper, that kind of thing, but it's not difficult to make that shift.

Can I add on one question from that then? If such changes happen, can we confuse the electorate, because we are talking about one system for 2026, possibly, and then maybe a different system altogether for 2030? So, how do we engage with the electorate to ensure that they understand those proposed changes?

Yes, that is certainly a danger, and voters already have to deal with multiple different voting systems across different elections in the UK, and specifically in Wales. But, you're right, changing the system repeatedly can only add to that confusion. I wouldn't exaggerate the extent of the problem, I guess. From the voters' point of view, none of these systems are actually terribly complicated. Particularly when you get into STV, if you start looking under the bonnet, then it gets scarily complicated, but the voter doesn't need to worry about that.

I think as well the review is really important. Whatever comes out of the process of the Bill's scrutiny, I think ensuring a really muscular review is absolutely critical, because I'm sure that, if you pursue the closed list, there will be unintended consequences of that, which you would wish to then review at the end of the period. I like the term 'healthy democracy' and so on, but you really need to get under the bonnet of that and explain exactly what you mean: is that about turnout, or is it about citizens' understanding and the intelligibility of the system and maybe different demographics and how that's played out?

The other point I'd make, Chair, if I may, is that, obviously, I would like to see the internal democracy of Wales treated in the round, so that we looked at local government as well. And, of course, local government does have the opportunity to pilot different electoral systems, and it would be wonderful if we had pilots on STV in local government during this period. I appreciate that not many are enthusiastic about this at the moment. Nevertheless, wouldn't it be good, because you'd have another body of evidence of how STV works and representativeness from that as well whilst you have a closed list system operating for the Senedd? I know that might sound a bit naive, but it would be a great piece of research and evidence for the review that you would have after the period of the next Senedd.

Heledd.

So, the point that I made in my written evidence is simply that the principle of democratic equality is a really important principle, and, to the extent that you move away from equal numbers of Members across constituencies, you move away from that principle of democratic equality, and it's important, therefore, to have a good justification for doing so. Now, you've just offered a good justification for doing so, and community ties clearly do matter.

What I was suggesting in my evidence is that this is just an issue to think about very carefully and to think about where the balance of those things most appropriately lies. We have now seen the Westminster-level boundary review work through with the 5 per cent flexibility, and in most cases that seems to have been fine and it hasn't caused huge problems. You mentioned a case you know much better than I do where there may be concerns, but there has never been a boundary review where there weren't some communities that were split up and were upset about it. So, wherever you set that threshold, there is going to be a trade-off, and I just think it's important to think carefully about whether there is sufficient justification for having such a broad range of flexibility as is in the Bill at the moment. I think you need a very clear justification for that.

I think it certainly is the appropriate body. It should be a body in Wales that is responsible for this, and I think the principle of what's termed 'automaticity' among nerds like me in the implementation of boundary reviews is a desirable one that's being introduced. So, the current UK Government introduced that in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 for UK boundary reviews, and I think it's absolutely right that that should be applied in Wales as well.

But it is key, if you remove the ability of the Senedd to have some kind of check at the end of the process of boundary reviews, that you're absolutely sure that the boundary review process itself is free from undue political interference. So, I gave evidence with Robert Hazell, my colleague at the University College London Constitution Unit, to the committee that looked at the Westminster legislation on this, and we argued very strongly that, in that case, there needed to be greater protections for the independence of the boundary commissions from the potential for interference from the Executive. I think exactly the same applies here. So far as I can see, for example, there's no requirement that the commissioners should not be members of political parties, which would seem to me like a fairly obvious, basic starting point. So, some thought around exactly what are the constraints upon appointments, who can be appointed, would be appropriate. Some thought around the process of appointment would be appropriate. There's very little in the legislation currently about how the commissioners are appointed, and ensuring that there’s some kind of independent process that produces either a candidate or a small list of candidates, from whom Ministers then choose, would seem to be appropriate.

And then, finally, the kind of key point that we made in our evidence to the Westminster committee on this was that commissioners should be appointed for non-renewable terms, so that there is no danger of their being inappropriately influenced in order to hope for re-election. So, my colleague Robert Hazell has worked on protecting the independence of regulators and other such bodies a great deal, and he argues that that is the most important principle—of all the principles—that needs to be applied to these kinds of bodies.

Can I say something as well? I agree entirely with Alan. I think there's not enough substance around how the commission would be constituted and worked for us to be able to judge whether that automatic principle should be enacted in the way we think it should. And I think we would need to look at the public appointments code and framework, because, clearly, there are prohibitions there for some public bodies around political party membership and so on.

And the other small point I'd make is that I think territorial representation is really important for the appointments of the new commissioners as well, so that you don't have a body that is entirely from the south of the country or the north of the country or wherever; that there is territorial diversity as well, and that that should be really built in, because that's the only way the public will feel that it has a legitimacy and integrity of its own.

Certainly, diolch.

Darren, you have four minutes.

I have four minutes. Can I ask you about residency requirements, if that's okay? So, in the Bill, it proposes that in order to be both a candidate and a Member of the Senedd, you must live in Wales. I think everybody's got sympathy with that point. But some people have suggested that it might be better to have a local connection to a constituency, rather than a simple qualification to live in Wales. So, for example, at the moment, under the suggested arrangements, you could live in Cardiff but represent a constituency in the Alyn and Deeside sort of area, but you couldn't live in Chester, or immediately next door, and stand as a candidate for Alyn and Deeside. Do you think that that's satisfactory? Do you have any views on that? Should there be something about proximity to constituency, or about a constituency connection, in addition to the rules that we have? Is that something that you've considered?

If I'm being really honest, I haven't considered that in detail, but I’ll give you a view—and Alan might have a different one—which is: I think there's a difference between local and national within the picture of Wales. I think it's completely anomalous to have representatives in this Senedd who don't live within the national boundaries of Wales. The difficulty I could see with your point, Darren, is that, in a way, that should probably be left up to the political parties to decide, because people who might be on the electoral register in Cardiff might have very strong family and backgrounds in Clwyd, for example. So, should we be determining that based on where their current place of work and residence is, rather than where they may be making their home and working in the future?

So, I'm not sure that that can be done effectively through the Bill. It may be that that's something that the parties would take into account more naturally in terms of the selection of their candidate.

I guess I would say that the principle of voter choice is really important here. So, that firstly means that voters should in general be able to elect whoever they want to elect, unless there are very good reasons for having constraints on that. But secondly, clearly, voters should be able to choose someone that they want, and so this interacts with the question of list flexibility, and I would have—. So, if you have a system where voters don't have any say over individual candidates, then the particular parties are able to put at the top of lists candidates whom voters don't particularly feel any sense of connection with, and in that scenario, potentially, there's greater justification for putting limits on the parties in order to protect voters’ likelihood of having candidates that they want. Whereas if you have flexible lists, then there's greater ability for voters to decide whether they want a candidate who lives outside the constituency or not.

Okay. And with the current arrangements kicking in at the point of candidature, rather than on election, do you think there's an issue there? So, at the moment, we have rules around individuals who can stand for election and are not disqualified from becoming candidates, but may have to resign from things if they do become a Member, for example. So, they're not disqualified at the point of candidature. Do you think that there's an issue to consider here about whether the disqualification kicks in at the point of candidature rather than the point of election?

I can see the issues. I can see the benefits, actually, of each side of that, because, clearly, if we want to create a more diverse Senedd, people are taking a risk in terms of standing for election. There's never any guarantee that one will be elected, despite maybe even being towards the top of a closed list. So, it might be prohibitive to candidates who want to put themselves forward if you stop it being at the point of candidature, rather than acceptance of the position. But I haven't got much more to say than that, really. I think there's a risk attached to both sides of that.

Yes. I don't have a more developed thought than that, either, but it's an interesting question.

I'm going to hold it there, because I am aware that Professor McAllister has to leave on time. But I'll add an extra onto this: obviously, some people who are disqualified on election are usually in posts that may be remunerated, whereas candidature, you're not remunerated as a candidate. So, there is a slightly different consideration there as well.

Can I ask just one final question?

No. We haven't got time, Darren. Professor McAllister has to leave.

It's a really, really brief one.

It's up to Professor McAllister. She has to leave.

We're just going straight into our constitutional commission, but I'm—

Okay. It was just a really simple, straightforward question. Under the current arrangements, any constituency that's twinned with Anglesey to form a Senedd constituency will have about 25,000 fewer voters than everywhere else. Do you think it's right that that should still have six Members of the Senedd in the first Senedd term—or should it have five?

Well, I think if you move away from the same district magnitude across the whole of Wales, you bring in different challenges and different problems. I think the issue is whether we accept that Ynys Môn, Anglesey, requires that provision, and if we do, then I think we have to live with the fact that that will be a constituency with a smaller electorate, but the same number of elected Members. I think it could open up a whole set of other problems, were you to change the district magnitude for one of the constituencies out of the 16.

At that point, we'll end the session.

I'm grateful.

Diolch yn fawr.

Can I thank you both for your evidence session today? It's been very helpful. As you know, or you should know, you'll receive a copy of the transcript, and for any factual inaccuracies, can you please let the clerking team know as soon as possible?

Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. On that note, we'll now take a short break before the next evidence session and we should resume at 10:30.

I welcome Members and the public back to this morning's evidence sessions in relation to the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill. And in the second evidence session we have this morning, we have representatives of the Commission of the Senedd. Can I welcome Elin Jones, the Llywydd? Would you like to introduce your team for the record, please?

Alun Davidson, clerk, parliamentary business strategy.

Thank you for that, and for your time this morning. We have some questions for you, but perhaps I'll start off with a more general question.

The Counsel General, when he came before the committee, clearly stated that it was not a Government Bill; it was representing the wishes of the Senedd. How do you view the Bill? Is it a Government Bill? Is it a Senedd Bill? How do you perceive the Bill coming forward?

Well, the Member in charge of the Bill is a member of the Government, but the background of the Bill is more, possibly, unusual in its construct than other more straightforward Government Bills that come via manifesto and programmes of government that a Government would put forward. So, we know the history of the Bill, the long-standing discussion and independent reports and committees of the Senedd that have looked at the numbers of Members and electoral systems that would be appropriate for future Senedds. The committee, of course, the special purpose committee, came up with a set of recommendations, and the Senedd endorsed those recommendations, and then tasked the Welsh Government to bring forward the Bill as we see it.

I think it's also clear that the Bill itself has been part of the co-operation agreement that has been discussed between Labour and Plaid Cymru, and therefore there's that interesting aspect to this Bill as well. But in terms of our Standing Orders as a Senedd, then the Member in charge is a member of the Government and the Welsh Government have introduced the Bill as they have introduced other Bills into the Senedd over the past years.

Because, again, the Counsel General indicated that he was actually implementing the recommendations of the special purpose committee, but there are elements in this Bill that weren't part of the recommendations, so did the Senedd or the Commission have any discussions with the Government in regard to those aspects?

As I said, technically, the Bill is a Bill of a Welsh Minister, introduced into the Senedd. The spirit of the Bill, of course, part of it, has emanated from the motion agreed by the Senedd to ask the Welsh Government to bring forward this Bill. It has parts within it that were not part of that motion, and therefore the Welsh Government has introduced those as part of that. As chair of the Commission, as Llywydd, I was informed that that was going to be introduced just before introduction. We weren't involved in any of the detail around the discussions of those aspects of the Bill that weren't part of the motion from the Senedd, no.

Thank you for that. It's important for us to clarify that, because, obviously, the Counsel General will come back before the committee and we want to be sure as to what the boundaries are when we come back to the next set of questions with him. So, I move on now to Sarah.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you all for being here this morning. As you can imagine, in the current context of a cost-of-living crisis, and with cuts being made by the Welsh Government to its budget, the area of interest that I'm getting questioned on a lot by my constituents is the Senedd Commission's involvement in the cost estimates and how that's all come about. So, to start with, would you be able to explain the Senedd Commission's role in providing those cost estimates for the Bill's regulatory impact assessment, and if you could also elaborate on the conversations that the Senedd Commission has had with Welsh Government about those estimates, and any queries that have come about because of those estimates, please?

Okay. In terms of the costs that were provided by the Senedd Commission to the Welsh Government and have appeared in the regulatory impact assessment, we were requested to provide those costs by Welsh Government back in last December, and then the officials—and they can discuss in a bit more detail how they put those figures together—. And those figures were then looked at by the Commission and agreed by the Commission, and presented to the First Minister at some point—I forget the date—and then the First Minister responded in advance of the Bill being presented to me, wearing my other hat as Llywydd, that there had been some alteration to the figures in order to meet how they were looking to present their regulatory impact assessment. And we can discuss those issues with you as well.

So, I'll ask Manon to lead on how we put together the figures in the first place, and how we, within the Commission, look to meet the exact expectation your constituents have—if we're doing this, then we have to do it as prudently and as wisely in terms of public finance as is possible to do.

Before Manon comes in, can I just ask one question? You just said you presented the Welsh Government with figures, they looked at it, but they came back and presented some additional figures to you. Did you therefore go through the additional figures prior to the Bill being laid, or was it for you to consider?

The two aspects that were subject to change in that process were, first, to reduce the length of time of the period of years, because one year, the 2023-24, would have been a spent year, in that the funding would already have been spent by the time the Bill had gone through its scrutiny process. And the other was to conform to how the Welsh Government itself provide these figures in terms of staffing costs. We had costed it on the basis of every single member of staff that was identified as needing to be added to the complement of staff to be paid, at that point, at the top level of their scale. We know, in reality, that that never happens at any point, both for Commission and for political staff, and, therefore, to provide the Welsh Government with how they assess it, which is on an average of salary bands, we were part of realigning those figures in accordance with how they undertake their costings as a Welsh Government.

Manon. 

Thank you, Chair. We had to find a basis on which to plan, and, therefore, common assumptions were developed. And in view of the inter-dependency between the Commission itself and the independent remuneration board and the Business Committee, these assumptions were developed in conjunction between the three organisations, and then ultimately agreed by the Commission. 

Then, as Commission staff, we started off, as we always do, with service level planning, and those figures were then scrutinised at every governance level within the Commission, with the executive board finally satisfying itself that those cost estimates were modelled correctly, that there were no gaps or duplications, presenting those figures to the Commission. And then the Commission agreed the cost estimates and sent them to the Welsh Government at the end of March. So, what we had then was a snapshot in time, at that point, with high-level estimates of costs. As the Llywydd has already explained, there was then a dialogue with colleagues in the Welsh Government so that they could understand exactly what the figures represented. There were certain changes, as the Llywydd mentioned, in terms of the cost estimates, to conform with the Welsh Government's RIA methodology, and to reflect other provisions, such as the four-year terms. And then, the final figures that were to be used in the RIA were decided upon by the Welsh Government, and the Commission was informed of that before the Bill was laid.

Thank you very much. We've just heard evidence from Professor McAllister and Professor Renwick on the expert panel. I thought what was interesting was that they, obviously, looked at the costs, the cost-benefit analysis, really, but they reported six years ago. And so we did ask them did they think that the costs now were in line, I suppose, with things that they couldn't have predicted at the time, which was inflation and other rising costs that we have. So, in that context, I suppose, do you believe that you now have a level of certainty in the robustness of the cost estimates provided  and, for example, whether, following the experience of resourcing two additional committees in this sixth Senedd, you think that any changes will be made to the estimates made for the resourcing of additional committees in the seventh Senedd, which is, of course, one of the things that people are saying is a benefit of this legislation?

Well, I think that the costings that we supplied to the Welsh Government were the most accurate, robust costings we could've supplied at that time, given the fact that we had the basis of assumptions, of course—that there is a minimal change and a greater change—and we modelled, on both bases, a scenario of costings on both bases. But, as you've alluded to, even as we move closer to 2026, there will be factors that may need to change. The Commission is tasked with providing a budget for each financial year, as we are more current in how we are doing that. The budgeting process will provide a different analysis, a different set of figures, that may be greater or lesser than what we have in the RIA. But, ultimately, it will be for the next Senedd to decide both on what it wants to do, how many committees or how many times Plenary wants to meet, and it will be for the Commission at that point to provide the resource to meet the work and expectation of that Senedd. Therefore, these things are the best costings at the time, but we are in a dynamic Parliament and that can fluctuate up or fluctuate down—fluctuate up in terms of activity is how it usually works, by the way; as you've mentioned, two extra committees even in the midpoint of this Senedd.

Absolutely. And just a couple of very specific questions, I guess, on how the Senedd Commission has modelled the impact of larger constituencies and an increase in Members from mid and north Wales on the financial support provided to Members. So, you know, it's to be noted, as a result of the changes to the UK parliamentary boundaries, that there would be a disproportionate increase in the number of Members of the Senedd elected to represent mid and north Wales. Is this something that you've considered?

I'm going to ask Alun, because we obviously have costed for the increased costs of travel and maintenance and overnight spend that an additional number of Members will have, and I'm guessing that some of those issues will have been looked at in terms of, especially, overnight spend for those Members from mid and north Wales who will be having to stay overnight in the Senedd, and the travel costs as well.

Yes. There has been some, in the modelling that was done around the determination costs, consideration given to the different bandings of allowances in the different areas, to try and reflect the increase in different areas of Wales in terms of the Members. Those were factored into the figures.

Okay. Thank you very much. And I'd just ask, then, about the modelling and assumptions used when estimating the cost of the proposed refit of Tŷ Hywel, where, obviously, as Members of the Senedd, we work, and I suppose whether things have been considered like us doubling up in offices, like MPs do, for example, and the cost-benefit analysis of that refit.

Yes. Manon and Alun.

Yes, and I'll draw in Alun as well. I think issues such as the use of space is a matter that we need so much political input to that we haven't gone a long way down the road of considering that sort of thing, which the Members who are using the offices will need to determine in the long run. We have looked at reconfiguring the offices. The assumptions included that there would be still an office for each Member. So, that's where we are at the moment. And, as the Llywydd mentioned, there is a high-level estimate and then, each year, we will be putting forward a budget where we will be taking additional costs into account, such as inflation, closer to the date, and any emerging design considerations, any business considerations, that emerge closer to the date. And also, of course, we will be looking hard for savings through ways of working, and that is the difference between the budgeting system and the high-level estimates that we put forward in March.

Okay. That's very helpful. Thank you.

Only to add very quickly, the assumption is that Members, for the purposes of the cost estimates exercise, would be provided with their own office, and their staff be accommodated as they are now. That was the assumption made in terms of developing cost estimates, exactly as the chief executive and clerk has just said. There's a process of consultation that's really beginning now with Members, and, of course, final designs and plans will take account of some of that feedback.

Okay. Thank you.

And I think, looking back at all of this, over the period of the last five to six years when I've been Llywydd, and thinking that this could be coming along the line as the expert panel had developed their work, et cetera, one of the assumptions of course is that all additional Members and staff would be able to be housed in Tŷ Hywel. I think that it would have been very difficult pre COVID for us to have made that assumption. That assumption is now based on a different working pattern, both for politicians, political staff, and especially Commission staff, which is allowing us to think about how we deliver office space in a different way post COVID. Therefore, knowing that we haven't needed to go out to look at additional office space in the rest of Cardiff Bay has meant that this costing has been far more prudent than it could have been in a pre-COVID context.

That's really good to know. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

Darren.

I do just want to test this area of costs a bit, because, looking back at the expert panel's recommendations back in 2017, the costs even then—the capital costs—were higher than the capital costs the Commission has put forward now. Obviously, now's costs you would expect to be far greater, because of the increased costs associated with inflation, wouldn't you? So, for example, the refit of the Chamber and the refitting of offices in order to provide accommodation for Members is estimated to be £1.8 million across two financial years, in the figures provided by the Commission to the Welsh Government, yet the refit of a single corridor in Tŷ Hywel a number of years ago was £1.8 million. So, are they really realistic? Was it just a finger-in-the-air job? Where did you estimate these figures from? You must have had some cost estimates that you were able to associate with the works that you thought might be necessary.

Well, let's start with 'finger in the air'—no, it wasn't, and I'm sure that everything I've explained to you to date shows how the Commission itself, both in terms of staff and in terms of the Commissioners, looked at the figures carefully that were provided to the Welsh Government. In terms of the expert panel and their assessment of capital costs, I can't comment on that, but I would go back to the point I just made earlier: an expert panel sitting in 2017 would have possibly assumed that there would need to be extra office space in the context of everybody working in Cardiff Bay at all times, and that may have factored into their thinking at that time. But we haven't needed to do that now in how we've assessed our costs, because we believe that Tŷ Hywel is, on its own, able to accommodate in 2026 the additional Members and their political staff that are necessary.

In terms of the cost of the corridor refurbishment, comparing with any costs for both Tŷ Hywel Chamber and this Chamber permanently, then I'd make the point that—and Manon can make this in a bit more detail—that corridor refurbishment was not just a refurbishment, it was the development of two additional technical translation booths. It relocated our security presence from where it had been on that corridor to a fitted out, more purpose-built area within Tŷ Hywel. So, it was a big job at the time, not just new paint on the wall and new walls. But I think Manon and Alun will want to clarify some of the figures that you've alluded to there that may not be totally the right comparators to make.

That historical example was actually a very major building project. It stripped that area back to the bricks and, as the Llywydd mentioned, it created some new technical booths and also a new security hub for the whole building, which was needed at that time. We benefit—. In terms of the sheer building costs, which is what you refer to there, we benefit from the fact that the Siambr has a back wall that can be removed, so the construction costs aren't as big as they might have been otherwise. There is also included in the number that you quoted a lot of IT kit and equipment for the project. The capital cost in the RIA, if you add that in, it actually gets to £2.7 million, so it is actually more than that earlier project cost. Alun, do you want to add anything? 

Yes, that's correct. In terms of what's in the regulatory impact assessment, if you like, the total costs around the Siambr and Tŷ Hywel works come to about £2.7 million. It includes an element of the sunk costs that are presented in there, so 2023-24 costs, as well as the headline accommodation line costs. And you also find the Siambr ICT kit upgrade that's required within the other capital costs in the regulatory impact assessment, and that totals about £2.7 million. 

Yes. I'm just trying to understand why they're so wildly different, and why even those figures are still less than those that were in the report in 2017. So, the figures I've got in front in me from the 2017 report have the costs of the alteration of the Chamber, they have separate ICT costs, which are way under the costs you've proposed here, so I can see that they've gone up, those sorts of related costs. It's the costs of the changes to the building that don't seem to make any sense, and we all know that construction inflation is higher than the general rate of inflation as well. So, even back in 2017, additional office accommodation in Tŷ Hywel, not in a separate building, for 30 Members, not 36 as proposed, was £1.6 million. And, on top of that, £720,000 for ICT, £400,000 for the Chamber alteration, £250,000 for ICT within Members' offices out and about in their constituencies for 30 Members, so that's £3.29 million versus you're saying a total of about £2.7 million. It just doesn't make any sense.

Well, we have—. The figures that we estimated in March were planned robustly, as usual. I have assurance from the people with the relevant expertise within the organisation. They have been put together with help from the external consultants that we normally use. It is not to say that they won't be subject to change. Part of the sunk costs that Alun mentioned just now are the design costs that we'll have to undertake this year in order to keep the project on track, and decisions will have to be made by the Senedd in the course of that process that will influence the cost of the final design. We also have changes that will happen from year to year, as I mentioned before, as it comes to budgeting. There are some additional costs that have emerged, as I was scrutinised on by the Finance Committee recently. And there are additional costs that are emerging in terms of the configuration of the space in Tŷ Hywel, so we have laid those out to be as transparent as possible. But that is the nature of translating the high-level estimates into budgetary reality from year to year. I’m confident that the costs put forward were reasonable according to what we were being asked to provide in March, yes.

At the time. And there was no challenge from the Welsh Government about the assumptions that had been made on those capital costs in particular.

I don't think so.

No? They were just accepted.

Before Darren—. I just want to clarify something for myself, Darren. Because Darren's mentioned the figures from the expert panel back in 2017—I think it was 2017. Can you tell me, did they actually come to you for figures or did they actually produce those figures themselves? Do you know? Can you remember?

I wasn't here, I'm afraid, Chair. I believe that there was input from the Commission on those costs then. However, it would probably not have been subject to the same rigour of estimate in terms of the detail, and indeed in terms of the assumptions that fed into those estimates at that time, as they have been for the current purposes.

It would help us to have that comparison. If you perhaps could provide us with some information as to how those estimates for that report were produced, that would be very helpful, for us to know that.

Just to put it into context, the costs laid out in 2017, which were for a 90-Member Senedd—the upper-scale costs—in today's money, according to the Bank of England's inflation calculator, would be about £4.2 million. So, it's significantly different than the costs that you've been able to provide us with. So, I think a breakdown would be really useful, actually, just in terms of helping us to get our heads around it. Thank you.

Heledd.

We will try to do that, don't worry. 

I know. I'm not telling you what to do. 

I want to move on to job sharing issues. Jane. 

Could I ask the question—? I'm going back to the question on job sharing, and I understand the point that was being made as to the establishment of a committee in the next Senedd, and the duty upon the new Llywydd to establish a committee. Theoretically, it is possible that that motion is voted down, therefore no committee is established. Has the Commission looked at what the options might be in such circumstances, and should they be included? In other words, should there be something in the Bill that says, 'This needs to be undertaken', and rather than a motion to establish, there should be a duty to actually establish a committee, full stop, rather than a motion that could be defeated? Secondly, should there be in the Bill a requirement for the Government to act upon the recommendations of such a committee?

Several things come to mind when thinking about that question. I think the most fundamental thing is that, any Senedd, even this Senedd, could establish that committee now if it chooses to do so, it doesn't require an Act of this Parliament to establish a committee. So, the freedom is there to do that now, should we wish to do so, and the protection is there for the next Senedd to decide that it doesn't want to do so, even if the Llywydd has been charged with putting that motion down. I think the freedom of the next Senedd to decide on whether it wants to do this work and prioritise it in its first year, because there is a time constraint on the establishment of the committee, if I remember correctly—it is a freedom that the next Senedd should have. It may decide, in its first six months, that it doesn't want to do the committee at that point, and it votes the Llywydd's motion down, but it could return to it in another year or so and decide to establish that committee because it thinks it's a more appropriate time to do it, or it's changed its mind, and Senedds can do that, even.

So, should this be in the Bill, in that case?

Well, it wasn't at the request of the Llywydd for this to be in the Bill, so it is a matter for the Member in charge to respond to that in terms of why it's in the Bill, and for you as a committee to think about whether it should be in the Bill or not. I would be far more uncomfortable with this provision in the Bill if it was a duty on the next Senedd to implement this committee. As it is, the Senedd can vote down the Llywydd's motion, even though that might be embarrassing for the Llywydd at the time, whoever that person may be.

Okay. Thank you. Darren.

Do you think 96 Members is the right number of Members for the Senedd and what complications might that throw up for the working arrangements in the Senedd Commission?

I don't think there's a right and wrong number, and there are various expert panels and others who have considered what the number should be, or what the range of the number should be. The expert panel itself that looked into this issue in 2017 came up with a range of 80 to 90, veering towards the upper end of that range. Obviously, this is the number that the special purpose committee came up with, and, therefore, it's in the legislation that's before us. It seems to be a significant number, and it will mean that there will be far more capacity to undertake the work that this Parliament needs to do and flexibility to do that work in the next Senedd, so I'm comfortable with the number. 

There's no proposed increase in the number of Senedd Commissioners. You obviously chair the Senedd Commission. Do you think that that is a problem? Do think that we need more Commissioners, or do you think, actually, it could function, with 96 Members, with the same number of Commissioners?

The Commission looked at this itself, and there are no further responsibilities for Commissioners to undertake as a result of this legislation, so it felt comfortable with the number of Commissioners as outlined in this Bill. There is more work for the Commission in terms of its staff to do, and that is, obviously, reflected in the costings. But for the Commission itself, as the political representatives, we're comfortable with the numbers.

Obviously, I appreciate the Business Committee has discussed some of these matters as well—which I and other people around this table also attend. There is a proposal, of course, to increase the number of Ministers from 12 to 17, possibly up to 19, by a simple majority vote in the Senedd. Do you, as a Llywydd, have a view on that mechanism for increasing to 19, in particular, Elin, or—?

I don't have a Llywydd view on it to share with you this morning, but I was interested in both the written and the oral evidence given by a previous set of witnesses you had where there was specific mention of the fact that it would be more appropriate for primary legislation to look at the increase beyond 17 to 19, or possibly, as you, I think, alluded to there, that it would be in the context of a two-thirds majority, because it could be too straightforward for a Government with a majority to move quickly from the 17 to the 19. I would also urge any future Government to always remember—and for all of us to always remember—that these are maximum numbers. They do not have to meet the maximum at all times. I know there is a tendency, sometimes, to see it that way, but we should make sure that we always are responsible in how we allocate these roles and that a maximum is not a figure to aim for, it is just a maximum.

And I think we all have accepted that, obviously, some of the ministerial briefs are extremely wide, the portfolios are extremely wide. Some of the subject responsibilities of committees are very broad and wide as well. But, of course, if there were to be another five Ministers or seven Ministers, is the maximum scenario set out in the Commission's consideration of this of just three additional committees going to really deliver the additional scrutiny that everybody aspires to as a result of this Senedd reform programme?

I think the issue not to overly fix on here is the numbers of committees, but to think about how those committees in another Senedd and in this post-2026 Senedd could work. We know at the moment that the ability of committees to meet during a working week is restricted by the membership of those committees sometimes sitting on other committees that can't meet at the same time. The point that I'm making is that the committees themselves, even though they may be the same number of committees, can work a lot more than they currently are able to do. They could meet twice a week rather than once a week, they could meet for longer periods of time, they could have more responsibilities or fewer responsibilities depending on how often they meet.

I would say that one or three additional committees is quite a crude way of thinking about it. We had to do it in a way where we could base our costings on something tangible, but the next Senedd will be free to devise a timetable of committees that could see committees working twice a week, because Members would be free on both the Wednesday and the Thursday to do that because they're not sitting on another committee. So, there's far more scope that will be available once we have more Members to populate these committees in a different way.

Thank you.

You mentioned earlier that the Bill requires you to put motions forward for two additional committees—one being the committee on job sharing, and the other one being the committee to look to review the process. Based upon what you just said, where perhaps the ways of working will also be something that could be considered as things may change, should such a committee therefore be undertaken by the Senedd or should we look outside, to someone who has an outside view of both how we review the legislation, but also how it's working? Because sometimes when we work internally, we tend to have our own positions, our own views on it. Somebody from outside might actually be a better judge of that.

If the next Senedd was to establish such a committee and decide that the Llywydd's motion to establish a committee should be undertaken, and that the review of the implementation was looked at by a committee, then the implementation of this new legislation is considerable in terms of how elections have gone and how preparations worked, or didn't work, and what it's meant in terms of the establishment and the ways of working of the new Senedd. I would suggest that all committees always should look to have a degree of independence to how they assess their work, and to get expert advice in—as this committee is doing.

I would say that my main concern with this area of work would probably be on the timetable that's been placed on this committee to report. Is it within a year of the election? That would be May 2027. So, it would need to have been set up, and we know from experience that it can take a while for committees to be set up—a motion can be agreed, but then there can be some discussion around the membership, and the chairing of committees can take weeks to decide. So, even if you meet the initial criteria of bringing the motion by six months—. Is it within six months? Yes.

It's within six months of the first meeting of the Senedd, and the report within 12. 

And then you have a further six months just to do the work, which as I've said, is quite considerable on this, if it's to be done properly. So I have a degree of concern about putting a guillotine on that committee's work in terms of it has to report by May 2027. I'm not sure why that is in the legislation in that way.

I appreciate what you're saying, that there's a lot to be decided upon by the next Senedd as a consequence of this, but because this Bill actually is putting a requirement and duty upon things for the next Senedd to do, should we be ensuring that there's guidance and a direction of travel that we would expect that committee or those committees to follow? If we are telling the Senedd, 'You need to put a motion forward to establish, because we think these committees are important', should we also be putting in place guidance as to how we see those committees focusing and the areas that we would expect them to review? 

I certainly wouldn't want to see that in the Bill. Whether a Business Committee of this Senedd wants to prepare the way for committees that will be the subject of discussion in the next Senedd is a matter that could be considered, although as a point of principle I think it's important that we allow the next Senedd and then, ultimately, any committee that's formed to decide on how it wants to do its work. I find binding the hands of a committee in a future Senedd to be not an issue that I would consider that a piece of legislation should involve itself in.

Okay. Frequency of elections was not part of the recommendations from the special purpose committee. It's gone from five to four. You and I know that it went up from four to five anyway, because of other aspects. Were you consulted on the frequency? Has the change in the frequency impacted upon, perhaps, some of the calculations and workings that the Commission undertook in its preparation for the Bill?

We weren't involved in the decision making around this or consulted in any kind of formal way. We were informed that it was going to be part of the Bill and we reflected that in our final costings as well. The profiling of the costings, of course, differs quite considerably from an election year to a non-election year. So, that's the main difference in how the costings needed to be reprofiled, is it, or were there other issues about the four-year versus the five-year term?

That was the main issue. It came in after the Senedd Commission had submitted its cost estimates, and that was one of the adjustments that then was needed to the cost estimates to reflect that four-year term, so in effect reprofiling those election costs. 

So, those figures have been adjusted. 

They've been adjusted. That's what we've got in the RIA.

That's what's in the RIA, yes.

Okay. And have you identified any possible unintended consequences of this? We always talk about Bills and we always want to look at the unintended consequences of parts of legislation. Have you been able to identify any unintended consequences?

A possible consequence could be on the appointments by the Senedd that currently, because of our five-year term compared to four or eight-year terms of, say—. Is it the auditor general?

The auditor general, yes. 

There is a greater likelihood, possibly, with the four-year term that there may be some coincidence of appointments that is avoided by five-year terms. I probably haven't explained that very clearly.

I think it's just to reflect, I suppose, the point that you made earlier, Chair—that the term had changed from four to five and now we're back to four, so there are many statutory office holders who would have predated the five, but there are some—the auditor general, the standards commissioner, the remuneration board—who have terms that are not the same as Senedd terms and so there would be an impact in terms of when these people are appointed. But it would depend on the nature of the term of the individuals and whether, when the legislation creating those offices was put together, it was done on the basis of the Senedd terms, and it would depend on the officer holder in question. But it would have an impact, potentially, as to which Senedd and at what point in the Senedd term an office holder was to be appointed. 

So, we'll need to make some consequential amendments to other pieces of legislation, potentially.

Or not, as the case may be. That's a matter for your consideration.

Would you be able to provide us with a list of those posts you think would be affected by this consideration? Okay. 

I'll come back to Deputy Presiding Officers later on. I think one of the big issues that is being raised is the residency issue and also the question of vacancies beyond. I know that this is something that has been discussed by the Business Committee. But let's take the residency issues. Are there any concerns that the Commission has in relation to residency and as to whether that would exclude individuals from it? And the biggest question we perhaps have here is the issue of someone being unregistered on the electoral register, which basically at the moment means they can no longer serve as a Member of the Senedd. There may be an appeal to that, but in the meantime, by the time the appeal is heard, they could have been replaced, for example. So, is there a view from the Commission as to how you want to handle the situation? Should there be grace periods allowed for this type of situation? Should we ensure that no-one is disadvantaged because of an error that perhaps they had no input into? What's your view on that situation?

Well, not 'could have been replaced', but 'would have been replaced' without there having been an appeal by an individual heard in time for somebody who is appealing the fact that they were no longer on an electoral register in Wales and that they were appealing that fact with the electoral registration officer. Who knows how long an appeal process of that nature could take? And, of course, once disqualified because of not being on the electoral register, then the seat is vacant and there is a process that's outlined to fill that seat, and that seat would be filled. Therefore, there would be no opportunity for the Member that had been disqualified, if their appeal was successful, to regain their seat. That's how we've interpreted the legislation in front of us.

So, should there be a grace period as a consequence of that, so that people aren't disadvantaged because of an error they had no input into?

We know that errors can happen. A computer can say 'no'. And the right of appeal is important for anybody who could end up in that situation rightly or wrongly. I think it's a matter that does need a bit more thinking by both the Welsh Government and others in how the right to appeal could be enabled in this situation. I haven't got the solution to that, but I am bringing to you the possibility that this could become an issue for an individual that had been properly elected to this place but might find themselves in a different set of circumstances and was appealing that issue with the proper judicial process. 

Darren, did you want to come in?

Yes. And of course it's worth us considering the fact that the next Senedd elections would be undertaken at a time when automatic voter registration is taking place as well, and that, because of its first implementation, could also throw up challenges, couldn't it, potentially?

It could.

On vacancies, there's a clear situation about vacancies at the moment: if it's a closed list, it goes to whoever's next on the list, if this is a party position. If it's not a party position, if the individual either leaves a party or was elected as an independent, then that vacancy remains for the duration of the Senedd. What's your view on leaving a gap in a situation where, perhaps, a constituency may therefore lose representation in the Senedd as a consequence of that vacancy?

If a constituency has nobody that can represent it, that is an issue of some concern to those people who are electors in that constituency and also probably to the workings of the Senedd at any point, because it will change possibly quite dramatically the numbers, the configuration of how we do our work in terms of Government and opposition, even, but specifically committees and numbers of committees. I don't think that these possibilities will happen often, but my experience of the last years, especially the time I've been Llywydd, is that sometimes you can't quite believe what configuration and changes can happen even within a Senedd term. So, it is an issue of some concern, but unlikely to happen that there are no representatives for a constituency. But whether this Bill should have some kind of mechanisms to trigger a change at that point, whether that is by another election at that point for that constituency, then that's a complicated avenue to go down, but I think it may be worth further investigation by the committee.

That opportunity also applies to party lists, which I think the Bill states should be eight, but it's a very strong possibility that Members on that list either leave that particular party or are no longer resident in Wales, for example, and so it could actually happen on more occasions than just an individual being left as an independent; it could actually be a party list situation that creates that vacancy as well.

Yes, it could.

Should there be a recall in the Bill?

Well, I'm not an expert in working out whether there are mechanisms that are easily implemented to have recalls in a list system. I think, if I'm right, the Business Committee gave some thought to this and decided not to recommend anything for this particular Bill, but I think—. We don't currently have a recall, so we have to remember that. I think there are plenty of people who are interested in the recall provision of the Westminster House of Commons system, but we're moving away from being able to match that system in a constituency by-election, but how we would do that, I wouldn't be able to offer any solutions to you at this point. I think it certainly is something that may not feature in this Bill, but it's something that will feature, possibly, in terms of some discussions that either political parties or future committees who are interested in this may want to look at.

I understand the current situation, because clearly there are two ways of being elected to this current Senedd, which is the constituency first-past-the-post or the regional, and therefore a recall would have to cover both agendas. But in a proposed closed list system, there would only be one system of election, so that should make a recall scenario—. A mechanism—. Obviously it would be complicated, but it would be a single mechanism rather than perhaps a dual mechanism.

I think that's a good point to reflect on, because we certainly wouldn't want to be in a system where, if this system was retained currently, it would be possible to recall a constituency Member but not possible to recall a Member on a regional list. So, yes, it's more straightforward in terms of that.

Jane.

Well, we would all hope that. A question on the relationship between the proposed democracy and boundary commission and the Senedd, because I think it's proposed that, perhaps, there should be pre-appointment scrutiny by the Senedd. Or should there be pre-appointment scrutiny by the Senedd?

I don't think it's in the legislation, is it?

Okay, let's say 'should there be?', because we pre-appoint quite a few other posts, and this is an important part of the review in one sense, because they are reviewing the boundaries, and it's an element of how that progress is moving. So, should the Senedd be involved in the appointment of the chair of the board?

Well, I would make the point that this commission is different to any other commission, in that it will have far more interest to political parties and potential politicians—direct interest in how constituencies are configured. So, the principle of retaining the total independence of the boundary commission from the party political process is quite an important principle to guard. So, I would say that how the Bill is currently introduced, and making sure that neither the Welsh Government or the Senedd itself can change or vote down any proposal on boundary changes, so that they are merely laid, and that the principle of—a word I've learnt this morning—automaticity is adhered to, are important to retain. 

Now, on whether the Welsh Government or the Senedd should be involved in appointing the commissioners and the chair of the commission, I think the Bill allows the Welsh Government currently—it's a role that the Welsh Government has to appoint commissioners—and whether there should be pre-appointment hearings, I think that's a matter for some consideration, given that it's a Welsh Government appointee.

Particularly as previous witnesses referred to the fact that they should not be party politically involved, and there should be independence, and there should also, perhaps, be a single term. I just wondered what your views were in relation to that, and then Heledd will come in. 

I probably don't have a view on whether they should be single term or not as appointments. It's good to refresh on a frequent basis.

Heledd.

I exclude myself as Chair of the Llywydd's Committee.

As the Llywydd, I am not a member of that committee at this point. Siwan, do you want to outline some of the issues around pre-appointment hearings?

I guess the—

And the Llywydd's Committee.

Indeed. The Bill is conferring functions on an existing commission that would be in relation to the Senedd, but, currently, the commission looks at local government, and I guess that the committee may want to look at models elsewhere, for example in Scotland, and I believe you'll be hearing from the chair of the boundary commission there, which does combine those functions as to what would be the appropriate model for appointing commissioners, for example. As the Llywydd says, there is consideration for the Senedd as to whether appointments made by Welsh Ministers are subject to pre-appointment hearings by Senedd committees, and there are agreements in place in relation to a range of those. As you say, there is mechanism currently in relation to the Electoral Commission. The oversight of the Electoral Commission of the Senedd elections is the responsibility of the Llywydd's Committee, and that is something that came in in recent times, in terms of the changes that we made to the Senedd in the last constitutional piece of legislation. So, that is another model that you may wish to look at as a committee.

I guess, in Westminster, the model around the commissions pertaining to the elections to Westminster is, clearly, an older model, but it's, in theory, chaired by the Speaker, but that person never presides because they're a politician, so it's usually a presiding judge. So, there are a number of models in the United Kingdom that you could look at, or look at models elsewhere. But, currently, this legislation is conferring additional functions via the Senedd on something that was created, I suppose, for a different purpose, and so, as a committee, you may want to consider the pros and cons of different involvement of people who are part of the Senedd more broadly.

Diolch.

Darren.

Is it okay to move on to something slightly different?

Yes, okay.

The Deputy Presiding Officer role, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I didn't want to touch on that.

So, obviously, the Bill makes a proposal for the possibility of two Deputy Presiding Officers, and one thing it doesn't stipulate is, if there are to be three individuals, acting as Llywydd and two deputies, whether each of those should be from completely different parties or whether there's a possibility that two of them could be from one political party. Do you have any thoughts about that and whether those roles ought to reflect the political balance? I think that at the moment it simply says that the Llywydd and the Deputy Presiding Officer must be from different—.

Well, no. I'm loath to correct you, Darren—

Please do.

—but I think that the additional Presiding Officer also is caught now in the discussion.

So, it would have to be across three parties, was it?

Yes. Siwan, you can just remind me of exactly how that is constructed in the legislation, but it does have a kind of order to it.

So, the present legislation has provisions in terms of not being in the same party and not being—

In the executive.

—of an executive and both in the executive. However, there's an override provision, in terms of the Standing Orders and the two-thirds majority, and my understanding of the provisions—and I stand to be corrected—in terms of the additional Deputy Presiding Officer would be that you wouldn't have all three coming from a group with an executive role. So, you could imagine that they would have permutations of parties, potentially, and it comes down to how many parties you might have in a Senedd, because, in theory, you could have two. But I think the key principle is around not having a majority from the executive. Now, there's a moot point as to what would happen if everybody in the Senedd was, but then there's another problem there, isn't there? But my understanding is that the legislation reflects the recommendation of the Business Committee, in relation to having flexibility to have an additional Deputy Presiding Officer, that it wasn't a requirement. So, that's why there are two different provisions—the existing and the additional provision. But the Business Committee was clear about needing to have some sort of protection that they weren't all from the same party or from the same executive or non-executive, as is the current case. But I think it's recognising that, to some extent, what happens will depend on the composition of the new Senedd and the views of the new Senedd as to how it operates. So, that's why it's an optional provision as opposed to a requirement, as is currently the case, where you have to have a Llywydd and a Deputy; you can't not.

And you are right, it says they must be from different political groups, which is very important. Can I just test this issue of the name of—the English titles, if you like, on the face of the Bill? So, we've got used to Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer, haven't we, over the years, but the public at large are more familiar with the terms 'Speaker' and 'Deputy Speaker' in most parliamentary democracies. I know that you've shared a personal view in the past, Llywydd, that you would like to see those titles change. Can you give us further reason as to—? You know, the Welsh Government says it can't be done on this Bill, but can you give us a reason why it could be?

Well, I think the Business Committee, as well as myself personally, took the view that the Bill could consider the opportunity to change the title in English to 'Speaker' rather than 'Presiding Officer'. My experience, both within Wales and certainly outside of Wales, is that parliamentary systems are more used to using 'Speaker'. If I find myself outside of the UK, especially in other Parliaments, or when meeting visiting Speakers to here, then I tend to refer to myself as a 'Speaker', because that's the familiar term in the context of Parliaments. So, the Business Committee, in its view to the Welsh Government on this issue, along with others, did suggest that the Welsh Government could look at this. The Welsh Government did come back, in a letter at some point, to say that it was no longer able to look at this, because it considered that there were complicating factors around the legislation—[Interruption.]—yes, on 21 June—in the original legislation, in the Government of Wales Act 2006, that may make it an issue of competence as to whether we had that or not, and the Welsh Government decided it wasn't going to test the competence issue in that respect and therefore wasn't going to include it, which is fair enough.

Does the Senedd Commission have a view on whether the competence lies with the Senedd or elsewhere?

We haven't explored it in detail is how I'd answer that question at this point, yes.

Okay.

Can I go back to section 19 of the Act, which is the review aspect, and the Act talks about the Senedd establishing a committee to review? It doesn't refer to the Welsh Government having a responsibility to review. Now, I appreciate the Senedd committee would expect to take evidence from Welsh Government, as part of its process, but should there be a duty upon the Welsh Government also to undertake a review, so that it's not just the Senedd looking at how the Bill went through, it's also going to be the then Welsh Government looking at how the Bill has been implemented and whether it needs to take action? Because it seems—. I know there's still a clarification as to who actually owns this Bill, effectively, and it's clear the Member in charge is a Welsh Government Minister, but he keeps saying, 'We're only implementing the will of the Senedd.' So, should there also be a duty upon Welsh Government to undertake a review? As I said, that would be part of the committee's role, and they will give evidence, but that's not the same as making sure they undertake a full review as well. 

Well, I probably don't have a view on whether there should be a duty in here for the Welsh Government to undertake its review. Post-legislative scrutiny is a good model to follow generally, but the review, in this Bill, is quite a bit broader than post-legislative scrutiny; it's about the general health of the democracy and other—

Well, that's a question as to what that means as well.

Yes, and you'll have to pose that to the Member in charge. So, it's a wider discussion about how the election went, how the change went, how the implementation of everything went, and whether anything should change for the future. I would expect the Welsh Government certainly to have a view on all of that at the time. Whether that's done in its own review or whether it's done as evidence to a committee of that Senedd is probably not—it's not something I feel I need to come to a view on myself, other than to say again that I believe that doing all of this work, if that's what's intended in this catch-all review, within the first year of that new Senedd, is a challenge if it's going to get it right and if it's going to include both Welsh Government having analysed internally how it thinks everything went in order to provide its view to the committee, and also, importantly, the point you made earlier about some kind of independent scrutiny, that either a committee could commission or various universities could offer as a result of that. We know that all of that analysis on election results, for example, usually takes a good six months for a university to turn out after an election, so I am concerned about the timetabling in this Bill.

Have any other Members got a question? We're coming close to the end. No. I have got one I'm thinking of. We all know that this is a Bill, and there's a second Bill coming, which we anticipate. Has the Senedd Commission considered the implications of a second Bill, linked into this, and particularly how it might impact upon this Bill? We will look at the detail of the second Bill at another time. But in your consideration as a Commission, how have you viewed the possibility of the things that are left out of the special purpose committee's recommendations and the consequences that would have on this Bill? Because there might be some unintended consequences on this Bill on the basis of that. We're told about gender quota—we know that's a part of it, but will there be other elements of the special purpose committee's report?

Well, you're almost tempting me to—

I am.

—consider unknown unknowns there. So, I'm unsighted—

Perhaps the question is: what discussions have you had with the Government about looking at how it all fits in?

Well, I haven't had any direct discussions with the Government on this. Maybe something we haven't outlined to you is that Siwan sits on a joint assurance board with Welsh Government. You can explain how that has met in the context of this Bill, and whether it's meeting or not in the context of the next Bill.

There is a joint assurance board, as the Llywydd says, which is chaired jointly by myself and the director of EU transition, constitution and justice of Welsh Government. And the purpose of the board was to set up, because of the interdependencies between the work of the Government and the Commission in relation to Senedd reform, to share appropriate information and to assure our decision makers that we were working together in relation to these matters. So, we've been meeting since June last year, in terms of planning, mostly around timetables, for introductions of Bills and scrutiny, and then implementation thereof, from a Commission perspective. So, a big piece of work was around the costings.

In terms of content of legislation, that's not something we've been discussing, other than to be assured that the resolution of the Senedd vis-à-vis the special purpose committee recommendations were to be taken into account. So, that was something from our perspective that was important. In terms of legislation, we were aware that there would be more than one piece of legislation from a planning perspective, and so that is something that we've been scheduling in terms of the side of the Senedd reform programme that is looking at the scrutiny of the legislation, so making sure that we have arrangements in place, like we did with this committee, to advise you on establishing a committee, staffing the committee et cetera. So, you'll know, those of you who are members of the Business Committee, it's something we've been considering in terms of which committee looks at pieces of legislation, and the interaction between those and other relevant electoral legislation, like the version that is before another committee.

So, in short, to answer your question, yes, there have been discussions at that official level about legislation, but not in terms of the particular content of it, other than it was addressing recommendations of the Senedd. So, I think, to answer your question, Chair, in terms of the impact, it would be a matter for Senedd scrutiny to bring that out, as it does in terms of the interrelated other pieces of legislation that the Member in charge of this Bill is also in charge of, in other parts of the Senedd.

No, he's not, because he's quite categorically informed us it's the Deputy Minister for Social Partnership who will be in charge of the other Bill.

Indeed. But in relation to the electoral reform versions, yes.

Oh, that one, yes.

Correct, yes.

I'm just concerned, because, as we go through the process on this Bill, that other Bill will be starting its process and we will not have completed one to the other one yet, so the inter-links between the two, and the possible connections, will be important to identify, at the end of Stage 1, and before Stage 2 and Stage 3, going forward.

Okay, on that basis, we've come to the end of our time, and no-one else has questions. So, can I thank you all for your time this morning? As you know, Llywydd, you will receive a copy of the transcript, and if there are any factual inaccuracies, please let the clerking team know as soon as possible so we can get them corrected.

Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch yn fawr. And with the end of that session, we will now take a break for lunch, and we will reconvene at 12.45 p.m.

Good afternoon. Can I welcome Members and the public back to today's sessions of the committee? We're viewing the Senedd reform Bill, and we're on to our third evidence session this afternoon. Can I welcome Professor Stirbu to the committee, and we'll go straight into questions, if that's okay with yourself? And we'll start with Darren. 

Thank you very much, Chair. Can I ask you, professor, what your views are on whether we actually need more Members of the Senedd? 

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Darren, for the question. The size of the Senedd has been of great concern and recognised in many important reviews, the Richard commission being the first one all the way back in 2002 and 2004, and more recently, obviously, by the expert panel in 2017. And the concern has always been about this mismatch between the capacity to scrutinise, to make legislation, to represent and engage with the people of Wales, and the pace of change that the Assembly, now the Senedd, has had to absorb, especially after 2007 and then 2011.

You've heard a lot of evidence, and there's a body of excellent evidence there, saying that the Senedd is operating under the optimal floor size. By any international standards, the Senedd is under-resourced on the political side. And whilst it has done a great job of overcompensating for this weak political capacity with adapting and adjusting its administrative capacity to support politicians more, I think there's a great danger there around the scope, the nature and the quality of political democratic deliberation, which should be the essence of this. 

So, whilst you've heard all that evidence, what I wanted to bring new into this whole debate is, actually, the views of the Members and the people that work in the Senedd. I did some research in 2020-21 looking at the effectiveness of the Senedd committees, and I interviewed a lot of the committee Chairs and a lot of the parliamentary staff that support committees. And by their own acknowledgement, the challenges in terms of capacity have been absolutely phenomenal. So, in terms of this goal of effective scrutiny, the evidence that I've heard in that research on how the small numbers lead to ineffective work—. So, we heard how committee membership, for instance, was quite unstable, when you have committees of six Members, for instance, and during the fifth term, that tended to be quite unstable. So, lots of turnover in committees. Then what happens is that you lose some of that committee cohesion, that committee memory, and you get people midway through a committee term that are finding it quite hard, actually, to pick up on the work of the committee and engage fully. 

I've also heard from committee Chairs how difficult it is for them to actually keep track of everything that is happening, to read all the briefs and actually deal with Members who obviously do not have time to prioritise all the work in all the committees they serve, because there might be people that serve in two, three or even four committees. Obviously, I don't need to tell you all that, because I think you're still experiencing that, but we have a body of evidence that actually suggests that by politicians' own admissions and people that work in the Senedd, the challenge of the small size of committees, of lack of time to properly scrutinise, to properly engage with committee work, is actually quite big. And put this in the bigger context of the bigger challenges that are coming ahead in terms of perhaps additional powers, and now, with Brexit, the complexity of some of that work. So, I think, yes, the Senedd does need to increase capacity, and frankly I think it’s been kicked out in the long grass for far too long. 

I've been a Member of the Senedd for 16 years, Professor, and of course the work of committees ebbs and flows, but the membership of those committees, and the stability of the membership of committees, isn't going to be affected at all by this Bill in front of us. That's a matter, effectively, for political parties, to determine who attends committees and who doesn't, and who's appointed to committees and who isn't. So, it's not going to address that instability issue that you talk about. Are there not ways that some of the concerns that may have been raised with you could be addressed through changes to ways of working rather than simply adding more and more Members to the size of the institution?

I fully agree with that, Darren, and I think the qualification I will make here is that increasing the size of the Assembly is absolutely a necessary thing, but it’s not sufficient. Actually, my report shows that there’s a lot of things around ways of working, around prioritisation, around committee stability, committee membership stability—there are all these other things that are really important to ensure effective scrutiny and effective committee work. But, as you will know, and you'll all appreciate, I think the greatest currency in a parliament, and the greatest currency for effective scrutiny of legislation and of Government, is time, Members’ time. And that is what the increase in the size of the Senedd will bring. Now, the extent to which that is sufficient—you know, there are other things that need to be done alongside that. 

So, 96 Members is the proposal in the legislation before us. The expert panel recommended a range of between 80 and 90, which is obviously different. What's your view on whether this is the right number or not?

Obviously, I would defer this to the great expertise of the body of evidence that the expert panel has already built around this. What I would say is that I don’t think there is an easy way to calculate and to determine an optimal size of a parliament in terms of the numbers of Members. What I would say is that, actually, lack of capacity in a parliament operating under optimal floor size—you can see that, you can spot that very easily, and I think we’ve been able to do that in terms of the Senedd.

Now, the expert panel recommended towards the upper end of the 80 to 90 bracket; the Bill puts forward a proposal for 96. In my view, there are benefits. The benefits are only increased because, as I say, the currency, Members’ time, will increase. But obviously there is a big job there around justifying those extra costs, perhaps, to the public, but also ensuring that, actually, a 96-Member Senedd does deliver. And that is the job of the politicians, the elected Members in the next Senedd, to do. So whilst, as I said, I don’t have very strong views, and I rely on the expertise of the expert panel, I would only say that the more Members you have, the more Members’ time you have, therefore the more scope for committee specialisation, for reducing multiple memberships of committees and so on and so forth.

So, the more Members you have, the more Members' time you have, but that's got to be traded off against the costs and being able to persuade the public of the need for change. You've obviously done work and research looking at other Parliaments and parliamentary models, Professor Stirbu: is there a minimum number of members of a parliament in your view that a nation the size of Wales should have?

Look, there are countries with populations similarish to Wales that actually have Parliaments in the range of anything from 100 to 130, 140 Members, so—. But, then, if we look at—. We can look at subnational Parliaments across Europe and we see variations there—you can see Parliaments that range from 75 to 94, to 100, 129 and so on and so forth—but I think what we need to be probably looking at—and I think the expert panel has made that point quite clear in their report—is that, by any international standards, by the kind of regional authority index, if you look at the scope of powers and legislative competence that Wales has and the size of the Senedd, 60 Members is far too small.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Darren. Before I ask Sarah, I will put on record that I was a Chair in the last Senedd as well, and I probably was part of the survey that Professor Stirbu undertook, therefore I won't ask too many questions in that area. Sarah.

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you for being here today to answer some of our questions. I'm just going to move on to looking at the size of Welsh Government. So, do you think the increase to a maximum of 17 Welsh Ministers is a proportionate use of the additional capacity available in an enlarged Senedd?

I think it is only natural to expect that the number of Ministers will increase, as well as—. We're talking here also about futureproofing the Senedd against future changes—so, potentially, enhanced powers, potentially extra powers around the devolution of justice, policing and whatnot. So, I think, yes, that it's very expected that we see an increase in the number of Ministers. This is justifiable, in my view, on two grounds: I think currently some of the ministerial portfolios are quite broad, as are the portfolios of the committees, and also the second aspect is, yes, the scope of powers might widen in the future. I think one point, though, that we need to consider is that, with more Ministers, then we raise a question around effective scrutiny. Will we need more committees in order to scrutinise them? And, also, we can all accept that the Senedd, as it stands, is quite heavy on the Executive in terms of the proportion between the number of Ministers and the whole Senedd, and I think that proportion needs to go down rather than up. I think the proposals are in line with that principle and I think you've heard evidence already on that. So, in my view, I think that is acceptable, but there are a lot of issues around how you recast those ministerial portfolios and how, then, you rethink your committee system in order to be able to scrutinise that.

Thank you. That brings me on, then, just to my second question, which is your views, then, on the provision in the Bill for the maximum number of Welsh Ministers to then be further expanded potentially through secondary legislation. I'm assuming that would be a similar answer, but, you are right, we have heard from previous panellists today that it should not be seen as a target, though. I assume you'd agree with that.

Yes, I think I would agree with the fact that when you have this sort of—. Okay, it's a maximum number; we probably shouldn't aim towards that. With regard to a possible increase beyond the 17, I think that I tend to agree—. I think you've heard evidence this morning around how that is done, and I think that that's probably a matter for the Senedd to do that through primary legislation, rather than a Government just increasing its size as and when it wants to.  

Yes. Thank you very much and thank you, Chair.

Heledd.

Yes, I was quite surprised at that. I think that that is quite an unusual and strange type of provision, to place a duty on a future Presiding Officer and a future committee in a future Senedd to do that kind of work. I can understand that the Welsh Government would want to ensure and protect that a review is happening. So, I can understand that, but the way that it's being done—. I think that you'll probably hear more from more constitutional experts than me, but, to me, it did sound quite unusual. What I would say, though, is I think that what I would like to see, actually, is this type of review being part of a more wide-ranging review about how democracy in Wales works and what are the criteria of success here about a healthy Welsh democracy. So, for me, that's more important than whether or not the Bill places a duty on a future Presiding Officer for that. 

For me, the type of review that I would like to see is a more kind of wholesome review around a healthy democracy in Wales. What does that mean? What are the criteria of success? I know that the Wales Centre for Public Policy has recently published a report around this, a kind of healthy democracy index. I just came across this report a couple of days ago, so the committee might want to consider that and maybe get some evidence, if it hasn't already, from the authors of that report.

We have a very complex situation here, where you have three different electoral systems and three different types of political representation in Wales. Just focusing on reviewing how these arrangements work at the level of the Senedd elections, I don't think that it will take us too far along the aim of having a healthy democracy in Wales as a whole. So, I would see this as part of a bigger type of review, rather than just focusing on whether these particular arrangements introduced by this particular Bill are appropriate or that they work well.

Another point on this, I think, is communicating the need for change. I think that there is a big piece of work to communicate the need for change in relation to this change—enlarging the Senedd and changing the electoral system. Then you are going to have to do another piece a few years after, and I am just worried that if this is not put within a bigger context of the full range and scope of democracy in Wales, then it's going to create a little bit of fatigue, I think, both for people who are interested in the system but also for the voters. 

Thank you. So, in terms of looking more long term, you see merits, then—obviously, some revisions in 2026—but, maybe, after one full term, it may give us a better picture. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but it's a continuous assessment of how this is working, rather than just think, post one election, that we'd review and that's it then, but that there should be also mechanisms to review further down the line as well.

Yes, I definitely agree with that. I think continuous monitoring, evaluation and review of how the system works is necessary. And I would say that what's probably critical to that is really involving the people of Wales in that discussion, in that type of review, rather than keeping it an intellectual exercise and quite closed to experts. I would like to see this issue around how democracy in Wales works and what's important—what are the important criteria there—being part of a broader conversation in the future. 

Thank you. And do you think it's appropriate that the Welsh Government is asking a Senedd committee to undertake this work or should it be broader—you've mentioned the engagement with the public and so on—to see how things are working in practice? Is it usual practice for it just to be narrow, or are there examples where other countries have successfully engaged the population? Obviously, part of what we'd want to do is engage more people in democracy, and expand the type of people that want to be in the Senedd making decisions, as well. So, I'm just interested in your views on that, please. 

I always find it problematic when a government of the day is trying to impose something or place a duty on a future Senedd. So, I think that is problematic. But I think it's a matter for this committee to see what other alternatives there are to protect and to ensure that this type of conversation and this type of evaluation and assessment actually take place in the future. But I think it's quite unusual, to my knowledge, to have this kind of imposition and to have this kind of prescription in a Bill of this type.

I think, in terms of your other point, around involving the people of Wales in these kinds of conversations, obviously there are lots of mechanisms there to do that, and I think these have been tried and tested in other places. And just opening up the whole concept of representative democracy to be complemented by elements of participatory and deliberative democracy is very important, and I think those can be things that a future government and future Senedd can look at. And I know that Senedd committees have been quite good—comparatively, I have to say—in terms of trying to reach out to the general public and engage with the lived experience. But, obviously, there's a whole lot more to do. And I think this type of discussion and theme around a healthy democracy in Wales would be a great theme for a deliberative or participatory initiative, such as a citizens assembly or a deliberative committee-type of initiative. 

Diolch. 

Can I just ask one question on that? Clearly, the Bill mentions the word, or the terms

'the elements of a healthy democracy are present'.

Do you think the Bill should actually have clarification of what it defines as 'a healthy democracy' so that we understand the elements they wish for us to review? 

I do think that there needs to be clarification about what a healthy democracy means, and there needs to be some sort of clarification of what is the theory of change here for the Welsh Government. What are we looking to improve and what are the criteria for success? I think we run the danger of then thinking that a healthy democracy is just adopting the PR system, which is just talking about representativeness, and so improving representativeness of the Senedd, but then that leaves other elements of a healthy democracy outside that. But I don't know, because it's not necessarily clarified in the Bill what a healthy democracy is, from the perspective of the Welsh Government.

Okay, thank you. Jane.

Can I just clarify with you what you mentioned in my evidence—that I talk about policy development around this area? What do you mean?

Around job sharing. So, you think there should be further policy development around the elements of job sharing.

I was part of a team that was commissioned by the remuneration board in 2017 to look at barriers and incentives for a wide range of individuals to stand in elections to Senedd. We engaged with people who either held political aspirations or who were active in their local communities, and either stood for elections at Senedd level or at local government level. We asked these people about what would make them more likely to stand, what would make them really take the big steps in terms of joining a political party, for instance, if they hadn't been active in a political party, or seeking nomination for election, and so on and so forth. And we did quite a lot of work in terms of survey work, focus groups across Wales and interviews, and we also had an online engagement platform open, where we invited people to share their views. In relation to job share, what we heard was that this would be one of those incentives that would make people more likely to stand in elections. 

What's interesting about this is that we found that, actually, women and participants who identified as having a disability were more likely to consider job share as an incentive to stand in elections. So, I think this links with that sort of agenda around diversifying the Senedd. What we heard from people, for instance, was that this would enable members with childcare or caring responsibilities to stand, and would enable women, as well as men, to share childcare responsibilities more equally. It was an attractive prospect, in terms of the nature of the job, for people with families, people who were not ready to give up professional careers—so, for instance, doctors that felt that being out of their practice for four or five years would hinder their professional careers—solicitors, and so on and so forth. So, that was an attractive prospect. That's the evidence that we heard, and we put that to the remuneration board in one of our recommendations, to look further into this.

I'm aware of two candidates standing in the Scottish elections in 1999, that they wanted a stand on a single ticket, but they were turned down on that. I'm not aware of international examples of particular job share in political office, but there are different arrangements that would be quite similar. For instance, in Sweden, an elected representative who will go on maternity or paternity leave then has an alternate who comes and takes their place for the duration, whether that is three months, six months or a year and a half. So, there are different types of arrangements.

I think it is fair to say, just because maybe we don't have examples from international practice, that shouldn't be a barrier for the Senedd to trial this. There's a great opportunity for the Senedd to lead the way on this type of work, and I'd like to see this trialled. Of course, whilst there is an appetite from certain people—for instance, those who would aspire to be Senedd Members and have a particular set of circumstances—we shouldn't, obviously, underestimate the technical challenges of job share. But, personally, I would like to see this happening and for us to be able to learn from the Senedd and for other countries to learn from the Senedd.

I'm not an expert in electoral systems, per se, and I think you've probably heard more expert evidence from other people. But what I would say is that if the end goal here is to make the Senedd more representative and, in a sense, to enhance that element of proportionality, then, yes, the move to a PR system is the right thing to do, and I think there is enough evidence there to suggest that proportional systems would achieve that goal. But, obviously, there are other elements in terms of voter choice and to what extent, for instance, a closed list will enhance or remove voter choice from people. I think we do need to look at the broader context of political dissatisfaction and how this will be perceived by the public. And again, I refer to other expert evidence on this: I think the expert panel has done a lot of work on this and there's a reason they landed on STV and they landed on potentially flexible lists in a PR system. I tend to agree with their assessment, but I also know that this could be the beginning; if then there is a commitment to review these arrangements, then maybe this could be the start rather than the end of the journey.

Can I go back to the question of job sharing? Because clearly there are two aspects of it: there's one that is the job sharing of a role within the Senedd once you've been elected, and there's the job sharing of the role of the Member itself, which I think you were talking about, which would encourage people to put themselves forward for election. Do you think the Bill goes far enough in either of those aspects to basically pursue job sharing as a realistic option for election in Wales?

To be perfectly honest, Chair, I don't think I'd like to comment more on the job share, because I don't think I have the right expertise on the technical details of that. But what I would say is that it's something definitely for the committee to look at. It's something that has come up in evidence from Wales in terms of knowing that it is perceived as an incentive for people to stand in elections, and I think that shouldn't be discounted if the aim is to have a more representative Senedd and to increase the chances to attract people from a wider range of backgrounds into elected office in the Senedd. But I admit that the technicalities around what this would mean are beyond my expertise here.

Thank you for that. I'll move on to frequency of elections. Clearly, you did some work on committees and therefore have a good understanding of how the committees operate here, and the workloads upon committees. The proposal is to reduce it back to four years, as it was in the first three Senedd terms—or Assembly terms, as they were then. In your work to date, do you think that will have an impact upon the effectiveness of committees?

I think it's a very good question, Chair. I think there's something about allowing committees sufficient time to pursue their agenda and so on and plan strategically and evaluate their work. I think on the move from five to four years, four-year terms are very, very common across most established democracies. We know that the US is an outlier, because the terms are considered too short, and there's not enough time to push some of the agendas through. If we look back at the Senedd committees before the five-year term, I don't think that would make a great impact, in my view. I would say that it's only reverting to something that was happening before anyway. But I don't have any strong views or evidence that I can rely on on this, and in the 2026 term, this would probably need to be one of the things that we need to look at carefully in terms of evaluating what impact this might have on committees' work.

I will put a rider in for the public record: of course, for the first three Assembly terms that were four years, the Senedd didn't have primary law-making powers at that time.

On residency, have you any views on the Bill's requirement that any candidate, let alone any Member, needs to be resident in Wales as far as being on an electoral register within Wales?